PURPOSE: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a B-cell malignancy characterized by a variable clinical course. Several parameters have prognostic capabilities but are associated with altered response to therapy in only a small subset of patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used gene expression profiling methods to generate predictors of therapy response and prognosis. Genomic signatures that reflect progressive disease and responses to chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy were created using cancer cell lines and patient leukemia cell samples. We validated and applied these three signatures to independent clinical data from four cohorts, representing a total of 301 CLL patients. RESULTS: A genomic signature of prognosis created from patient leukemic cell gene expression data coupled with clinical parameters significantly differentiated patients with stable disease from those with progressive disease in the training data set. The progression signature was validated in two independent data sets, showing a capacity to accurately identify patients at risk for progressive disease. In addition, genomic signatures that predict response to chlorambucil or pentostatin, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab were generated and could accurately distinguish responding and nonresponding CLL patients. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, microarray analysis of CLL lymphocytes can be used to refine prognosis and predict response to different therapies. These results have implications for standard and investigational therapeutics in CLL patients.
PURPOSE:Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a B-cell malignancy characterized by a variable clinical course. Several parameters have prognostic capabilities but are associated with altered response to therapy in only a small subset of patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used gene expression profiling methods to generate predictors of therapy response and prognosis. Genomic signatures that reflect progressive disease and responses to chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy were created using cancer cell lines and patientleukemia cell samples. We validated and applied these three signatures to independent clinical data from four cohorts, representing a total of 301 CLLpatients. RESULTS: A genomic signature of prognosis created from patientleukemic cell gene expression data coupled with clinical parameters significantly differentiated patients with stable disease from those with progressive disease in the training data set. The progression signature was validated in two independent data sets, showing a capacity to accurately identify patients at risk for progressive disease. In addition, genomic signatures that predict response to chlorambucil or pentostatin, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab were generated and could accurately distinguish responding and nonresponding CLLpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, microarray analysis of CLL lymphocytes can be used to refine prognosis and predict response to different therapies. These results have implications for standard and investigational therapeutics in CLLpatients.
Authors: Clive S Zent; Fenghuang Zhan; Steven A Schichman; Klaus H W Bumm; Pei Lin; James B Chen; John D Shaughnessy Journal: Leuk Res Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.156
Authors: H Döhner; S Stilgenbauer; A Benner; E Leupolt; A Kröber; L Bullinger; K Döhner; M Bentz; P Lichter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-12-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Adrian Wiestner; Andreas Rosenwald; Todd S Barry; George Wright; R Eric Davis; Sarah E Henrickson; Hong Zhao; Rachel E Ibbotson; Jenny A Orchard; Zadie Davis; Maryalice Stetler-Stevenson; Mark Raffeld; Diane C Arthur; Gerald E Marti; Wyndham H Wilson; Terry J Hamblin; David G Oscier; Louis M Staudt Journal: Blood Date: 2003-02-20 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Alessandra Ferrajoli; Michael J Keating; Taghi Manshouri; Francis J Giles; Amanda Dey; Zeev Estrov; Charles A Koller; Razelle Kurzrock; Deborah A Thomas; Stefan Faderl; Susan Lerner; Susan O'Brien; Maher Albitar Journal: Blood Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Diane F Jelinek; Renee C Tschumper; Gustavo A Stolovitzky; Stephen J Iturria; Yuhai Tu; Jorge Lepre; Nigam Shah; Neil E Kay Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: A Rosenwald; A A Alizadeh; G Widhopf; R Simon; R E Davis; X Yu; L Yang; O K Pickeral; L Z Rassenti; J Powell; D Botstein; J C Byrd; M R Grever; B D Cheson; N Chiorazzi; W H Wilson; T J Kipps; P O Brown; L M Staudt Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2001-12-03 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: John J Tentler; Sujatha Nallapareddy; Aik Choon Tan; Anna Spreafico; Todd M Pitts; M Pia Morelli; Heather M Selby; Maria I Kachaeva; Sara A Flanigan; Gillian N Kulikowski; Stephen Leong; John J Arcaroli; Wells A Messersmith; S Gail Eckhardt Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Harmen van Andel; Zemin Ren; Iris Koopmans; Sander P J Joosten; Kinga A Kocemba; Wim de Lau; Marie José Kersten; Alexander M de Bruin; Jeroen E J Guikema; Hans Clevers; Marcel Spaargaren; Steven T Pals Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Avery Polk; Ye Lu; Tianjiao Wang; Erlene Seymour; Nathanael G Bailey; Jack W Singer; Philip S Boonstra; Megan S Lim; Sami Malek; Ryan A Wilcox Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Junyan Lu; Ester Cannizzaro; Fabienne Meier-Abt; Sebastian Scheinost; Peter-Martin Bruch; Holly Ar Giles; Almut Lütge; Jennifer Hüllein; Lena Wagner; Brian Giacopelli; Ferran Nadeu; Julio Delgado; Elías Campo; Maurizio Mangolini; Ingo Ringshausen; Martin Böttcher; Dimitrios Mougiakakos; Andrea Jacobs; Bernd Bodenmiller; Sascha Dietrich; Christopher C Oakes; Thorsten Zenz; Wolfgang Huber Journal: Nat Cancer Date: 2021-07-01